I’m watching people on twitter who have spent the last day screaming “KILL THIS BILL” now noting that if the bill fails, it will have been a colossal “blunder” on Obama’s part.
Not it won’t, you halfwits. It will have been sabotage, first by Lieberman and Nelson, then by the progressive wing.
And Kthug supports the bill. Must be his authoritarian streak, his Republican roots, his being an Obot, and his putting party over principle.
Very Reverend Crimson Fire of Compassion
I am first. That is all. For now.
GReynoldsCT00
so that makes you what at this point? -2?
eastriver
We are in the middle of an on-going process. If you can’t stand the heat, stop peeing your pants in the middle of the kitchen.
Wait. Unless… this all to drive up comments on something, anything, other than posts on pets or coffee?
(cue light bulb)
….ohhhhhhh
duh.
Hunter Gathers
Because of Barack Obama, baby seals have to die.
Krugman is next to be added to the DINO list.
Jen7
Either way, it makes Obama look weak. Unless this is fixed, Obama and Dems are screwed. Idiots. And I’m an obot.
Punchy
Benny “Full” Nelson doing his best to scuttle this bill, probably by cutting it to shreds with his nouveau coiffure. Never seen a man so fucking obsessed with making sure his hard-earned industry kickbacks don’t pay for abortion milkshakes and fetus gras.
Cat G
No, within the rules of the Senate it IS possible to get a good bill done. This is on the head of Harry Reid, the majority leader and secondarily the Senate Dems who are not willing to use the rules and a sharp shiv to get this done.
Progressives have largely played along in hopes of getting a decent bill.
And a drink is an excellent idea. +3
John S.
To paraphrase from 2001: A Space Odyssey as pertains to the general discussion of HCR on this blog as of late:
My god, it’s full of
starsstupid.The manic progressives have their slogan, and it is Give me everything, or give me nothing!
Eat your heart out, Patrick Henry.
rob!
Why oh why hasn’t Barack Obama solved all our problems by now?? WAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!
I mean, the whole point of electing Obama–the only thing that made it possible, even–was because Bush was such a catastrophic failure. So, obviously, Obama should be able to fix everything in just 11 months, right?
Oh, wait…
kay
I don’t think it matters.
They’ve dug so far in on this bill they can’t admit there’s anything good about it, ever, now, and killing the bill will be perceived as a huge victory, for the opponents.
We’re in NY 23 territory now, where a loss is really a win.
chiggins
Yeah, there goes the electorate again, letting our elected officials down!
But come one, don’t forget Chuck Norris.
mk3872
John – I am with you , buddy , but listen:
LET THE FAR-LEFT LIBS KEEP SLAMMIN OBAMA!
Have you noticed the uptick in his approval #s since Hamsher, Kos, Olbermann & Dean starting hammering him?
Take a look at Obama’s #s in the AP poll and Gallup today.
Obama is centrist. Always has been. Probably always will.
The “lefty progressives” have been taken for a ride by the conservamedia. They seem to believe the lines by Rush, Beck, Malkin, etc. that Obama is communist socialist.
He’s not. The more he is seen as dirt by the far RIGHT and far LEFT, the better it is for Obama.
Dork
I just want to ask everyone who wants to kill this bill what HRC they expect to see from President Palin in 2013. Please. I’m all ears.
cfaller96
I’ll repost this from the previous thread, because I’m really curious as to what John’s response would be:
Exactly, John- you’re terrified of seeing Republicans come back into power. In order to avoid that, Progressives have some things they want, otherwise they won’t turn out…and you don’t want that, do you?
So…if it’s soooooooooo important for you to keep Republicans out of power, shouldn’t you be working to make sure that the Progressive base is tended to and happy and eager to turn out in 2010? Shouldn’t your energy and time be spent making sure Progressives will help you achieve priority #1 (i.e. keep Republicans out of power)?
Sentient Puddle
A drink is an excellent idea! Except for the fact that me taking one now would probably mean my boss would yell at me. Or the VP who sits in a cube about 20 feet away from me.
But hey, more fly paper. I’ma go back to the cat thread.
donovong
We have entered a new dimension or something. I just saw President John McCain on teevee agreeing with Howard Dean.
This was all a lot easier to take when I didn’t give a shit.
Catsy
For hopefully the last time…
Every progressive that I know who now wants to kill the bill–myself included–wants to kill it not because it is insufficiently liberal, but because without a public option or equivalent, THE MANDATE WILL HURT THE POOR AND SPELL ELECTORAL SUICIDE FOR THE DEMS.
I normally don’t go in for all caps, but this is three straight posts where you’ve vomited up this kind of blame-the-lefty-purity-trolls horseshit, despite dozens of comments on said posts repeatedly pointing out that you’re misrepresenting what’s behind the recent desire among progressives to kill the bill. At this point it looks like you either are not reading your own comments–in which case hopefully the intrusive formatting will draw your eye–or you’re perfectly aware that you’re wrong about our motivations and are arguing in bad faith in order to demonstrate that you haven’t completely morphed into a DFH.
Knock it the fuck off already. The only person it’s making look like a troll is you, and trolling your own blog is pretty pathetic. I suggest knitting as a less embarrassing hobby for a grown man.
Cat G
@Cat G: Let’s be clear – using a sharp shiv means for example, that if Joe Lieberman votes to fillibuster either the bill or amendments, he loses his seniority with the Dems. That means his nice, seniority based office space, his chairmanship – which includes the extra staff, office space, budget perks, and platform. He can vote against the bill for conscience (ha ha ha) sake, but he cannot go against the party and the president on allowing A VOTE UP OR DOWN.
He would fold in a millisecond.
And the same goes for Ben Nelson – fillibuster and YOU ARE DEAD TO US.
The Grand Panjandrum
I’m headed out to stimulate the economy and by my kids some goodies for Chrifsmas. I will then go home, eat dinner and drink two 750ml bottles of this very fine quadruppel. I figure by the time I get back online to check out BJ, later tonight or tomorrow morning, it will Cole and a handful of others left in the Democratic Party.
Have a good’un.
John S.
That will be a huge victory for progressives. Because we will have stood up for what we believe in, no matter what the cost. Because if we can’t get a bunch of recalcitrant conservative Democrats in line, then we may as well give control to the Teabaggers.
ellaesther
Honestly, John, if you’re going to keep up with the Twitter, we’re going to have to shoot you on an hourly basis.
Step away from the Tweets!
kay
@Dork:
I look forward to President Palin making the “evil government mandate” argument much more eloquently than liberals are, anyway.
bemused
John, go for an hour massage, unknot those muscles & destress. I haven’t had a hot stones massage yet but I hear those are the best.
Liz
@The Grand Panjandrum:
I will join you. Drinks and yes, a little sadness. *sigh*
Guster
What’s your Secret Plan for getting Nelson on board?
Elie
@cfaller96:
Yes, blackmail is always a good strategy.
Also, the “Progressive Base” is not homogenous and is not necessarily synonymous with the hard left, or manic progressives. Some of us on b-j with whom you have been sharing your enlightenned musings, are part of that base and we do not necessarily require coercion or blackmail to obtain a hearing…
But have at it. Yeah, do what I say or I am going to stay home and let the right wing run this country again. Really patriotic and supportive of the values of the left, are you?
Seebach
This is what I fear. I can hear the Republican ads now. I’m just glad I’m in Texas and I have no voice whatsoever, because I don’t know what to think.
Nellcote
@Cat G:
That’s a huge assumption. The could just jump parties or go “independent”.
KCinDC
Howard Dean just posted this on Facebook: “Improvements can still be made in the Senate, and I hope that Senate Democrats will work on this bill as it moves to conference.”
Hopefully that won’t be considered too shrill.
Jody
I’m with you John. The bill sucks, but I want it passed. Provided it doesn’t suck so much the GOP use it as an albatross around the Dem’s necks to get back into power, and then repeal the damn thing.
I don’t think it’s there yet. But if the language about mandates without cost controls is what it seems to be, then this bill might just kill the Dems after all.
jibeaux
Take down flypaper to insanity. Put up beer thread. Put up gift ideas thread. Put up actual thread as a thread. Please.
Midnight Marauder
You and me both, JC. I haven’t been so ready to get shitfaced during the middle of the day since…
yesterday.
Fuck.
rob!
Saw this on TPM:
Yeah, f**k this guy because the bill isn’t good enough.
I love Keith Olbermann and all that, but will he foot the bill for this guy’s medical costs?
Da Bomb
@Elie: You should Al Giordano. He’s always comforting and actually is a community organizer who worked with the late Senator Ted Kennedy.
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/3691/health-care-what-would-teddy-do
It’s good stuff.
Zifnab
And yet…
:-p
At least some progressives know how to handle a little criticism, rather than just “Bah! Bah! Two legs better!”edited for self-idiocy.Brien Jackson
@Hunter Gathers:
But Krugman supported the bailout! He’s never been a True Progressive!
On the bright side, maybe they’re just running a really good parody of wingnuts.
John S.
Not at all. And hey, maybe the manic progressives will listen to their champion and save their energy for when the bill actually moves to conference – when the details actually matter.
All this hand-wringing over the shitty Senate version of the bill that hasn’t been passed yet and hasn’t even gone to conference is, in the words of Booman, “borderline retarded”.
Edit: And that assumes that even the SHITTY bill can pass with Ben Nelson’s current stance. Asshole.
Dannie22
This is all probably fairly new territory for you John. The conservatives march in lockstep. You have never seen the liberal side of things and it’s new to you. But don’t despair. And have a drink for me
kay
@Catsy:
Oh, baloney. You seized on the mandate because it’s compelling.
If the mandate spells electoral disaster, then so did the mandate to purchase the public option insurance option.
I can’t wait until liberals try to sell the next “under-funded government mandate”, like energy regs, which WILL increase coal state energy prices, short-term.
This is gonna come right back and bite you in the ass.
Da Bomb
@KCinDC: Well did he say that when he was on Morning Joe?
As I recall, John Cole has a problem with the fact Dean was blathering on about not fiercely supporting the President in a 2012 election.
Gosh, I thought people made those decisions you know after about 3-1/2 years into the term, and not less than year into it.
Nellcote
@John S.:
Snark?
I’ve noticed that Keith & Rachel don’t call them “teabaggers” anymore. Are they SELL OUTS to their corporate masters?
Da Bomb
@kay: THIS.
Gringo Starr
The war on straw continues apace.
Go on, keep telling yourselves those crazy progressives are demanding “everything” and demanding it immediately. Start honing your arguments for when you have to tell all those people who can’t afford insurance why it was for their own good that Democrats made them buy it. And good luck telling them that the next election will really, truly be the one that finally shows them something, oh, we promise this time, cross our hearts.
But..but..Sarah Palin is craaaaazy! Booga booga!
JenJen
Oh, shit, you said “halfwits.”
John S.
Yes. I forgot to add the tag.
cfaller96
elie, you can whine and moan about how “disgusting” electoral blackmail is, but the reality is that a demoralized base leads to Republican victories. And John has been very explicit that his top priority is to prevent that.
I find it curious that when a Nelson or a Lieberman holds something hostage, the response is “oh he’s awful…but suck it up and give in to him.” But when someone on the left holds something hostage, it’s “OH MY GOD YOU DFH PURITY TROLLS ARE BLACKMAILING US AND YOU’RE GOING TO RUIN EVERYTHING!!!!!1!!!”
We saw in 2000 what happens when the left is demoralized. Yes, the Naderites were wrong and blah blah blah…but it happened nonetheless. It’s not like this is an idle threat. It happened before, it can happen again.
So shouldn’t we work to prevent it from happening again? Shouldn’t we avoid demoralizing the left? Or is it Just.Too.Much to give the hippies something to feel good about? Is it worth giving power back to Republicans, just so you can keep punching the hippies? Is that the real top priority here?
Guster
@Catsy: I’ll fix that for you: “Every Jane Hamsher of the Left that I know who now wants to kill the bill—myself included—wants to kill it not because it is insufficiently liberal, but because without a public option or equivalent, THE MANDATE WILL HURT THE POOR AND SPELL ELECTORAL SUICIDE FOR THE DEMS.”
I’m not sure if the bill oughtta pass or not, but I do know that they still don’t have the votes for passage at the moment. And all this blamestorming is ridiculous. Clearly, just about _everyone_ could’ve handled this better.
We’re arguing about unknowable shit, which is pretty stupid. If this fails, how long until we try again? In two years? In twenty years? Anyone who thinks they _know_ are full of shit? Would a second try be better or worse? No fucking clue. Will democrats suffer more if this passes or fails? Nobody knows.
There are worthwhile conversations to have about this bill, and many of them are happening, but there’s also a shitload of stupidity about sabotage and halfwits.
Comrade Mary
@Catsy:
Numbers or STFU.
If you kill the bill, you are not getting a better one. You are certainly not getting even the weak public option that survived until December. Which means you get the status quo, and the status quo sucks (says Krugman, says Klein, says Silver).
Just Some Fuckhead
There is no reason to consider the bill dead yet or that Lieberman’s or Nelson’s votes for cloture can’t still be bought. I know Lieberman and his AIPAC masters would love to have Gaza and the west bank so there’s always that chip. Whatever it takes, I always sez. Nelson might be satisfied with a compromise that covers abortion with public funds but requires the bad mom to be tattooed with a scarlet A. I understand kids really dig tattoos these days.
Reid still has the nuclear option that Republicans invented available to him. There could be possible rules changes in the session that begins in the new year. There is always reconciliation that Republicans used for such diverse votes as tax cuts and drilling.
Or, ya know, we could just remove the mandate. Yeah, you shitty-bill-at-any-cost folks have told us that would be the worst thing evah but so what? Whatever it takes, right??
Zifnab
@Gringo Starr: Ultimately, I can’t help but think that making everyone buy insurance will make everyone the enemy of the insurance companies as much – if not more – than the enemy of the Democrats. And when the Republicans lead to the defense of the insurance companies, like they always do, they’ll come out looking worse for it.
In an ideal world, forcing everyone to buy insurance will make people motivated to improve insurance – not run away from it entirely.
But with the Tea Party movement in full swing, I can’t help and suspect that nihilism is on the rise and a Republican resurgence will be more than happy to just burn it all down and piss on the ashes.
So it’s damned if we do and damned if we don’t. I don’t know what makes this situation better.
AlaskaSeth
The “sabotage” could have been defeated by strong leadership from the White House. Just saying.
Doug
Seeing the White House go after blue dogs with at least the same vigor as they demonstrated pushing back against Dean would go a long way toward convincing me the Obama administration was at least trying.
kay
@Seebach:
“The mandate will hurt the poor” ignores Medicaid, but ‘the poor” sounds really good, so they’re going with it.
Children = Medicaid or S-CHIP
‘the poor” = Medicaid
Plus, there’s a low income exemption, but ignore that, so we can say this is about “the poor”.
John Cole
I don’t think that is fair. Liberals have had to make a lot of concessions to get the bill to where it is, but that is due to the Senate’s stupid rules and the fact that Nelson and Lieberman just want to kill the bill. It sucks, and progressives have taken it on the chin, and it is unfair that Nelson can get away with it, but what you have to remember is that he doesn’t want the bill passed.
What on earth- you can’t detect a difference between his facebook posting and his kneecapping the president? My problem was with Dean’s 2012 BS on Morning Joe.
Sloegin
As for the bill ever reaching the President’s desk, It’s a tag team thing. First up was Holy Joe, now Ben Nelson will have a go at it, with probably Mary Landireu next. Then back to Holy Joe, repeat.
And yes, unless there are enough continuing and rising subsidies for the poor and middle class to swallow this horse pill of mandated buy-ins, it is electoral suicide.
Ha! What am i thinking! Of course big Med / Pharma / Insurance will bankrupt the subsidies long before the next election cycle.
Da Bomb
@Comrade Mary: She is defintiely not talking any of the people I know, or helped in my community.
And also says Al Giordano.
John S.
Wow, talk about straw.
Considering that none of that is likely to take effect until 2013, I’d say it will be quite some time before anybody will have to complain about being forced to buy anything.
And anyway, it won’t matter because all the wilted flowers in the Democratic will stay home because they got burned, which means that the Teabaggers will ride into power on a wave of enthusiastic voters just in the nick of time to save us all from being forced to buy anything at all.
So you may as well just vote Republican – only they can save us now.
Catsy
@Nellcote:
Yes, they could. I’m not clear on how that would leave us in a materially worse situation than we are now.
Once you have the 50 Senators needed to hold the majority, the numbers between 51 and 60 mean fuckall if you can’t even bring your legislation up for a vote. Let’s say Nelson and Lieberman jump parties. How is having a Democratic caucus of 58 any different than having 60, if the two Senators making up that difference won’t allow the party’s core agenda to come up for a vote anyway?
People need to get over the delusion that having more Senators in the caucus past 50 means anything whatsoever. The magic number 60 is not the number of people in your caucus, it is the number of people who will vote for cloture regardless of whether they intend to vote for or against the final bill.
kay
@Comrade Mary:
How about stop using “the poor” politically?
Genuinely poor people in this country are on Medicaid.
Egypt Steve
OK, I do trust Dean to know what he’s talking about, but on this one, I go with the Nobel Prize winner. It probably is better to pass it.
That said, I wonder if Krugman isn’t throwing out a red herring. Does the thing have to die? What would happen if five liberal Senators said they were not going to vote for cloture, and actually meant it and followed through? Would Reid agree to do it through reconciliation? If Reid showed signs of doing that, would four or five Rethugs, terrified of what would come out of that, vote to move the compromised bill to a vote, giving Obama his “bipartisan” victory? Would that be a bad thing? Or would Reid let it all die?
John Cole
@Da Bomb: That Al Giordano was just what I needed. Remember, Giordano and Booman remained sane during the Democratic primary last year, too.
That reminds me. I need to check on the nutters at Hillary is 44.
JenJen
@Catsy: Horseshit. I’m a progressive, and I’m not on board with this “kill the bill” meme. “Every progressive I know” does not equal “Every progressive.”
ETA: Strike that. I mischaracterized what you wrote; you said “every progressive that I know who now wants to kill the bill” which is quite different from what I thought you wrote. I was way off-base on that.
My apologies. God how I loathe family in-fighting.
@Da Bomb: That was a bit of a soothing tonic! Thanks for that.
Catsy
@kay:
Thank you for presuming to inform me of what my own motivations are. Your insight has saved me from wasting any time reading anything else you have to say.
@JenJen:
No shit. Thank you for clearly missing the point.
The point of noting that “every progressive I know” supports killing the bill for that specific reason was to refute John’s repeated smear that everyone who wants to kill the bill is being selfish because they’re not getting the public option or Medicare buy-in. Nowhere did I assert that all progressives want to kill the bill.
jibeaux
So what the hell is up with Nelson? Is the road to 60 through Nelson or is it through Maine? Are we all arguing about something that is already dead? A new day, a new fresh hell. I have got to stop reading about this.
KCinDC
@Da Bomb, the Morning Joe flap seems to have been much ado about nothing.
Paula
@Catsy:
Exactly. Well said.
Kryptik
*sigh*
Screw the scotch. Chugging my bottle of advil is really starting to look good at this point.
John S.
You’re right John, it’s not fair at all. I was just being a little hyperbolic. But an awful lot of this “KILL THE BILL” talk seems to smack of that sentiment.
For what it’s worth, I think that once this piece of shit gets to conference that somebody looks at revising the mandate if it doesn’t have any meaningful cost control – whether that is via a public option or not.
Elie
@Seebach:
And as usual, we dont let facts interfere with hysteria.
The major reality about cost control is that you cant have it (effective cost control) without a mandate to put everyone in. The public option is actually a weaker cost control than a mandate that spreads the risk over a broad population. Otherwise the costs of covering the sicker people blows us out of the water on premiums. Also, that fact is central whether we are talking single payer, expanded Medicare or insurance companies. The ultimate payer, you and me, whether through taxes or direct contribution, will pay MORE without a mandate than with one..
So lets let the libertarians distort this some more with their axes to grind and we can be sure that we fully screw the President. That will show him — err — so what about health care!!!??? Why dont we have universal coverage in this rich country? Oh – errr — well we ALMOST had universal coverage but didnt want to really be made to participate universally …uh oh… did we mess up?
jibeaux
@JenJen:
I’m guessing Bernie Sanders also considers himself progressive.
KCinDC
@John Cole, your latest problem was with Dean’s “kneecapping the president” (which was based on a misunderstanding), but your criticism of his statements on this bill started before that.
HumboldtBlue
Yeah, those damn progressives out there actually making noise, attempting to hold someone, anyone in an elected position accountable. What saps. Good thing we’re going to be forced to buy shit insurance from those insurance companies because we all know that the only fucking way to provide health care is to force people to buy insurance.
Insurance companies are known for their keen medical training and expertise. Insurance companies who are noted as the world’s best orthopedists or internists or surgeons. That’s fucking brilliant. You have a useless and callous model to provide health care by funneling any access to that health care through people who know nothing about health care. Makes a whole lot of sense to me. In fact, it makes so much fucking sense I think we should just pile more shit on top of the shitty system and then penalize people when they decide to give you the finger.
When is the mandate to purchase a snuggie going to pass? How about a mandate that forces people to purchase a television, I mean, all those poor corporations need that money and if they can’t provide an honest service and the bottom line starts to suffer, well, we’ll just pass a law.
WereBear
I’ve gone around and around on this thing, and it comes down to: if this is the best we can do, it’s the best we can do.
We should go for it.
Even President Obama has changed his mind about some details, now that he’s slogged through further trenches. People will get insurance, Nate Silver, (who is as close to a Vulcan as this planet has,) has crunched the numbers for me and he’s reassuring, and tantrums don’t get the job done.
It doesn’t matter how it affects the midterms, or whether Lieberman gets what he wants, and all that crap. If this is about people dying, and I thought it was, then this will address a lot of that.
And there you go.
Wile E. Quixote
@cfaller96
Yes! The official Balloon Juice meme as propagated by John Cole as handed down from the Obama administration is that progressives can eat shit while Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson will get everything they want, but only after we tell them that they’re bad and naughty people and shake our fingers at them and moan about how bad the Senate is.
So get your mind right and remember, anyone who questions any policy of the Obama administration or our Democratic Senate is now officially as bad as a tea-bagger and wants Sarah Palin to be president in 2013.
Oh, and this change speech. Just forget about all of the lofty rhetoric. Barack Obama is a corporate Democrat and always has been one and if you believed anything he was spouting on the campaign trail you were just being silly because the only thing he ever was serious about was expanding our never-ending war in the Middle East, the rest of it was just designed to lure in the suckers and shame on you for believing it.
Seebach
@Elie: I’m not trying to be hysterical. I just know the deck is stacked entirely against us. The right gets to set the media narrative.
Catsy
@Guster:
No, you won’t. Don’t you fucking dare put words in my mouth. I’ve had quite enough of internet jackasses doing that today.
Hunter Gathers
@Sloegin:
I am sick to death of this mandate shit. If your premiums are higher than 8% of your income, nothing will happen to you. If you still can’t afford it, and can prove it, you will not be penalized. Period. Nobody is forcing you to buy something you can’t afford.
GReynoldsCT00
Progressives should be convinced to exercise their right to vote? Give me a break.
Da Bomb
@KCinDC: I am sorry, I am not reading an article that ties to Arianna “I sound like Zsa Zsa Gabor” Huffington.
How was it just much ado about nothing?
@John Cole: Yes I remembered that as well. Al is always such a sane voice. And he is one of the few people to show Glen Greenwald his ass. Nate SIlver is pretty good too.
As I have stated several times. it’s like people within the netroots completely forgot about that conference call in July on how the White House was going to handle this reform. And the same people I just mentioned talked about this same conference call. Memories are very short.
cleek
@John S.:
golly. that doesn’t sound a bit like the kind of purity-enforcing idiocy that makes the tea-baggers so amusing to watch.
for example:
Just Some Fuckhead
@Elie:
So what? Compromise and kill the mandate. Have a bite of this shit sandwich. Aren’t a billion dollars in subsidies worth it? Think of the poor people..
There, there.
Paula
@Gringo Starr:
Also well said!
JD Rhoades
It’s not our JOB to be as confused as they are!
Tax Analyst
@#15 Sentient Puddle said:
So yeer’e chicken, are ya? (He says from his cube which is now completely out of management view)
John S.
Damn, that Al Giordano piece is a thing of beauty.
I’m just going to save myself the time and aggravation of trying to fumble through my opinions by just linking to that.
JenJen
@Catsy: I edited my remarks before I even read yours. I do apologize, again, for completely mischaracterizing your post. I’m not even sure that’s a word, but I am sorry.
mightygodking
This is balls-out retarded because the only public option that was ever on the table wasn’t going to change anything; it was forced to be “even” with private plans. Basically the public option was a nonprofit that promised really hard that it wasn’t going to screw you TOO badly.
Without the public option there’s still generous subsidies and credits to help people buy insurance. Is it as good as a proper public system? Of course not. But is it something that will “hurt the poor”? Not even close.
Joe Beese
Oh dear, has the Laureate had to endure “a lot of agonized soul-searching”?
My heart just breaks for him.
Catsy
@JenJen:
Fair enough. As you can tell I’m on something of a hair trigger today when it comes to people putting words in my mouth or mischaracterizing my motivations.
Edit: And I replied before seeing your edit.
Sentient Puddle
Yeah, guess I’ll throw this one out and get the fuck out of here before I’m ripped to shreds, but all this talk about how kissing Lieberman’s ass and crap will demoralize the left and cause them to not turn out in 2010? Sounds awfully similar to the PUMA shit to me. You’ll have to forgive me if I don’t take it seriously.
shep
Ha! You’re worrying about what liberals are saying about the bill?! I think the whole point that’s just been made with HCR (and the wars, and the Wall Street bailout, etc., etc.) is that they matter to no one.
Just wait ’till this turkey is passed and the media and rightwing nutjobs get a hold of it. You think that’s going to help Democrats hold off the Republican onslaught? Ha!
JD Rhoades
Is anyone else going straight into moderation, or have I gotten on the watch list somehow?
Will
Hey, you guys! Fuck you!
This bill will hurt a lot of my friends. They do freelance and contract work and don’t make a fortune out of it. They’d love to have health insurance.
But they are fucking struggling. They got bills and are largely college educated, which means they have student loans. I was in their place a year ago and know that it fucking sucks to have a “decent” job and still end every month eating ramen so you’d have money for the rent on the first.
They also voted for Obama. Fuck, more than that, they were the people who were volunteering during his campaign, going around collecting signatures and building support in this normally red state that Obama won. I personally donated $250 to the man from a fucking unemployment check.
So yeah. I don’t like this bill. I didn’t vote for Obama so that he’d make the life of my friends measurably worse. Helping the poor by harming the lower middle class is not something I could support.
But it’ll give ya’ll a victory that’s not at all gonna bite you on the ass, because the liberals are stupid and we don’t have the “numbers” to suggest that taking 8 percent gross out of the pay of people who cannot otherwise afford insurance might be a bit unpopular. That’s just something we “latched onto”.
Olly McPherson
Fuck you, John. You’ve advocated more “halfwit” nonsense in your years on this blog than most of your posters put together. I guess we should all just defer to your peerless political instincts, as evidenced by Bush and Iraq.
cfaller96
Wile E., you’ll note that John doesn’t want to respond to that. He’s so used to the calculus of moving to the right to “get something done” that he’s lost his mind over the idea that a move to the left might be required in order to get a bill passed and keep the Republicans out of power (his alleged top priority).
Nobody likes to have things they want held hostage. Nobody wants to be forced to negotiate with people who are willing to blow shit up unless their demands are met. I get that. But you know, progressives have had to do that for so damn long, and (more importantly) worked so damn hard to give these guys the power that they wanted, that I am just unsympathetic to the “OMG BUT YOU’LL RUIN EVERYTHING!!!” fearmongering and guilt-tripping that John and others have been engaging in for a couple days now.
Call me whatever names you want, and feel free to be disgusted at this naked (and perhaps sociopathic?) horse-trading, but I’m not interested in “sucking it up and giving in” anymore. I’m tired- let some ConservaDems suck it up and give in, if only this one time.
shep
Oh, and Krugman’s an economist. The biggest problems with this bill are political. And they are huge.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Olly McPherson:
Maybe not, but his pageviews instincts are second to none.
Tax Analyst
jibeaux said:
Yes. Talk about {football, baseball, basketball, Lady Gaga, ball & gaga, nine-ball, eight-ball, whose balls, two balls} or anything other than ealth-hay, are-cay, reform-kay, or however you say it in ig-pay atin-lay.
You can even make Tiger Woods jokes. Well, maybe not that.
TJ
Progressives screwing it up? The Progressive House passed a bill a long time ago. Appears to me it’s the DLC types who are screwing the pooch big time. Tell me again why letting Baucus fart around for months was such a good idea.
Of course, the incompetents blaming the progressives is pretty standard.
The Moar You Know
@Catsy: Shorter Catsy: I am totally asking for it at this point.
Paula
@Elie:
“The ultimate payer, you and me, whether through taxes or direct contribution, will pay MORE without a mandate than with one..”
You state that this is true, regardless of whether it’s the current system, or single payer or the PO. You neglect to add that, if we went to single payer or at least had a “robust PO” the amount of all us would pay would be less. What’s happening now is that the current bill will force us to pay the most. Options to constrain increases have been removed.
Cat G
@Nellcote: Soooo they go independent. Then they have no power. Being chairman of the Homeland Security & Gov’t Affairs is a huge deal with lots of perks – lots of extra staff, better offices, control of budget & lots and lots of power. Lieberman chairs that committee. He’s kept his seniority because the Dems have let him…and Obama lobbied the Senate to do that. Dems didn’t have to do that any more than they had to do it with Arlen Specter. Ben Nelson chairs two subcommittees, one in appropriations and one in Armed Services.
I’m not saying you make them vote for the bill or ammendments, they just don’t get to fillibuster it.
This is the most important issue facing the Congress…and Obama says we’re screwed without it.
So if any of these Dems are going to buck the Party & the President, strip ’em.
If Obama can’t figure out how to handle these 2 &*$$# then he’s either as milktoast as Reid or he doesn’t really want it.
EriktheRed
As I’ve said elsewhere, I’m still in favor of seeing this bill pass.
Doesn’t mean I’m not also disgusted with the Dems, though. Looks to me like, despite not being able to control everything in the process, they could have played their hand a lot better.
Elie
@Jody:
One more time: the mandate is not just about universality, but cost control.
I hear your apoint and agree that other cost controls and strong regulation of insurance company pricing is also necessary, but the first part — having a broad based population –is essential to keep costs as manageable as possible. Why? If we have a voluntary system, the healthy may not participate and that would leave the sickest and most expensive in the program. As costs raised, the healthy would continue to bail out leaving more and more of the sick and more expensive. Now that would blow up health care and give the Republicans what they want.
We have to cover everyone and regulate the prices charged by insurers. Also
Will
How about this?
The mandates hurts the freelancers, self-employed, part-timers, construction workers, artists and others who form a good chunk of both the liberal base and under-30s in this country.
The guy earning $20,000 isn’t poor by government standards, but he’s not doing well and this bill is going to fuck him in the ass. And you geniuses think they’re going to like having to fork out 8 percent gross of their paycheck in exchange for really crappy insurance policies that will still leave them bankrupt if they have a medical emergency?
These were also the people who put Obama over the top in a lot of the country. I know you guys want a win, any win, really bad, but this one’s going to bite you in the ass.
Oh well. One of the few benefits of being a leftist in this country is that you get to say “I told you so” a whole fucking bunch.
Sentient Puddle
@Tax Analyst: Unfortunately, the only beer in my filing cabinet stash has a rather strong hoppy aroma. I crack that shit open, and half the floor is going to be coming over to see if I have any extra (which I do).
Emma
John, pass the bottle, please. I’ll buy next time. I have my own cat and my own dog, though, so I don’t need to borrow Tunch and Lily for huggies.
Paula
@Will:
Exactly.
Just Some Fuckhead
I’m sorry shitty-bill-at-any-cost folks, I didn’t hear your answer. Can we compromise and remove the mandate? This shit sandwich ain’t gonna eat itself, ya know. We all gotta pitch in.
Elie
@Paula:
Only partially true.
If we had single payer, even if we started out lower, if we did not have universality costs would increase and by definition, isnt universal mean everybody? Were you thinking we could have a single payer without a mandate to participate? It wouldnt be universal if it wasnt, well, universal now would it?
Rick Taylor
@John Cole
__
And because Reid orchestrated the debate to put Lieberman in a perfect position to screw over progressives, and assumed he wouldn’t because, you know, they were buddies and all, and Lieberman wouldn’t do such a thing when push came to shove.
__
Also, I’m not convinced Lieberman wants to kill the bill. He certainly wants to humiliate the left as much as he’s capable. At the very least, he doesn’t want to be seen as the one who killed the bill; that wouldn’t fit his self image as a caring person who wants good health care reform to pass more than anyone. He might be happy to neuter the bill enough so that progressives kill it for him.
kay
@Catsy:
Since it is demonstrably untrue that the mandate will hurt “the poor” I’m questioning your motives.
Unless we’re not talking about poor people, in which case you shouldn’t keep saying “the poor”.
clonecone
@cfaller96: We can start by teaching Jane, Glenn and Markos how to count to 60. How in the hell is a more progressive bill supposed to defeat a filibuster?
les
@Elie:
yeah. gotta have a start, gotta have everybody in. then work it.
cfaller96
GReynoldsCT000:
Please explain how “give me a break” worked in 2000. How’d that work out again?
The bottom line right now is the Democratic base is demoralized. Scolding and name-calling and guilt-tripping and fearmongering isn’t going to change that- again, look at 2000.
It’s becoming clear to me that the higher priority for a lot of Democrats is NOT actually to get a bill passed and keep Republicans out of power, but actually it’s to “keep liberals in their place.” If the priority was the former, then the poll numbers we’ve been seeing for awhile would have been met with “OMG what do we need to do to reenergize the base?” Instead the reaction has been “OMG you DFHs are going to ruin everything!”
I think a lot of you need to get control of your feelings about liberals and progressives and honestly ask yourselves “if given a choice between a Republican resurgence in 2010 or a liberal HCR ‘victory’ in 2009, which do I prefer?”
RareSanity
Holy Cow…
I have been off The Matrix for a couple of days with a deadline at work. I come back to my oasis of logic and snark, and all hell has broken loose!
Cole is absolutely foaming at the mouth. DougJ isn’t far behind. Commentors using safe words, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!
What the hell happened over the past two days?
EriktheRed
@Cat G:
I think Lieberman doesn’t really give a shit and likely already knows he’d be toast in 2012 anyway.
Cat G
@WereBear: It’s NOT the best that “we” can do. It’s a bunch of lousy capitulations to Lieberman and Nelson. If the Dems (58) and Sanders & Liebermann would commit to not fillibuster, then you can have the compromises necessary for a majority – 51 votes. All this high profile wooing of Sen Snow, and posturing by Bachus, Grassley, Lieberman, Nelson, ad nauseum is diluted. The nation is literally being jerked off because of the fillibuster because Nelson and Liebermann are trying to leverage themselves by using the fillibuster. Take that away and they’ve got no more power than any other senator.
Will
I’d also like to add that the “the freelancers, self-employed, part-timers, construction workers, artists and others who form a good chunk of both the liberal base and under-30s in this country” is another name for the majority of my friends, and me a year ago. If this bill had hit anytime between 2005 and 2009, it would have financially ruined me.
And don’t tell me about hardship waivers. I’m a graduated graduate student. I know from both hard experience and the experience of friends with the federal student loan administration that the federal definition of hardship is a lot like the federal definition of being poor – a lot worse than you’d think using common sense and decency.
JenJen
@KCinDC: I watched that entire exercise this morning, including the subsequent segments with Arianna Huffington, and I think this is either spontaneous backtracking, or someone got a phone call.
It pains me to admit that I read Dean’s tone the same way Joe fucking Scarborough did. As I said in the other thread, the whole problem is that the political effect is the political effect, regardless of best intentions. I don’t think Dean’s practicing good politics, and this particular explanation doesn’t really change that.
Jack
“If you don’t support the troops, the enemy will win!”
That’s what this blaming of the “progressive wing” for midwestern Dem shenanigans amounts to.
General Winfield Stuck
@Guster:
This
Amen bro. It is just mindblowing for the chant “kill the bill” when there isn’t anything, or at least the end product in existence to kill. Complete with a part by part analysis where this phantom bill is no good,
It is right up there with “Keep Government out of My Medicare” and the tea bagging stoopid. I never thought I would see the day when the netroots would go wingnut crazy, but here it is.
Hunter Gathers
@Will: Eight percent of $20,000 is $1600 a year. $133 a month. If your premiums are more than that, you aren’t forced to buy anything. And since I happen to be in that tax bracket, and since I pay more than that right now, then I could cancel my policy and face no penalty.
I give up.
Green Balloons!
Tax Analyst
@#106 Sentient Puddle said:
Aha! I see the issue. Besides, it’s very easy for me to be brave about DOJ (drinking on job) since I gave up drinking alcoholic beverages several years ago. Even as I type I’m eyeing a plastic cup one-third-filled with luke-warm lemonade.
But that doesn’t mean a “drink” doesn’t sound somewhat appealing at the moment.
Uli Kunkel
@kay: sounds like you’re questioning someone’s motives.
Set cap-lock deflector shields to full!
Paula
@Elie:
I’m saying that if we had Single Payer the mandate is entirely different. Less so if we have a robust PO, but still it would be different because there would be competitive pressure on the industry to lower prices. The current bill provides no mechanism for pressure, but forces us to buy anyway. It’s the worst of all options.
It won’t work. The industry KEEPs it’s anti-trust exemption. Loopholes allow them to penalize people for being older and for certain pre-existing conditions. They get to set the price and if people can’t afford it, we make up the difference through MORE tax dollars. This is a stupid, stupid solution.
Dr.BDH
A few facts: not all poor people are on Medicaid. Medicaid doesn’t pay physicians the costs of providing care for those covered. Neither does Medicare. Doctors therefore can’t make their overhead treating Medicaid and Medicare patients. The proposed buy-in for Medicare was $7600, twice what health care costs per person in other countries.
I have always supported a federal single-payer universal coverage plan that paid fairly for the costs of delivering care. That means the plans to control costs need to be part of the bill, so physicians will support it.
I have spent the past year speaking with any group that will have me, including the Chamber of Commerce, and I can say that nobody likes the bill that is evolving.
Not even Krugman (read his piece again)>
Seebach
@Hunter Gathers: Alright, I’m somewhat convinced. But Lieberman and Nelson aren’t done yet. It’s going to get worse.
Mithras
The mandate doesn’t kick in until 2014. We don’t even have specifics on what kind of coverage will be required (which is kind of screwed up on its it own), but high-deductible catastrophic insurance coverage is dirt cheap. Subsidies can be expanded.
Pass this now, fix it later if necessary. The politics of it are: If you pass nothing, we get hammered even worse in the midterms and 2012, and health care reform doesn’t come back on the table for a generation. Pass this and move on to jobs and everything else that’s pending and maybe save some seats.
cfaller96
clonecone, flip it around: without Sanders, Brown, Franken, Wyden, and some others, how does Obama and Reid get to 60?
And again, I love how the reaction to the preening asses like Lieberman is met with “what do we need to do to get his support?” whereas just contemplating the mere possibility of a progressive doing the same damn thing is met with derision, anger, shame, etc. People need to be honest about this double standard.
Jack
@cfaller96:
Ratchet and pawl.
Right now the pawls are positively incensed that some of us don’t want to work the ratchet anymore.
Or – gasp! – might just break the stupid contraption if the ratcheteers keep trying to grind us into their gears.
Uli Kunkel
@kay: if you don’t stop, catsy may have to resort to simultaneous caps and italics — then you’ll be sorry.
Rick Taylor
@Just some fuckhead
__
I’m more in the camps of agonizing-and-undecided and see-if-we-can-make-it-better-in-conference than shitty-at-all-costs. But as I’m sure you’re already aware, a bill without a mandate that forced insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions wouldn’t make much sense. No one would buy insurance until they actually needed it then.
__
On the other hand, removing the mandate as a political tactic, to give us a bargaining chip? I don’t know, maybe. Oh, you guys want that mandate back? Well sure!. . . if we put a public option or something similar back in to make sure insurance companies don’t just use a mandate to gouge the hell out of us
__
If all this has taught me anything, it’s that I have very little sense of what works and doesn’t work politically.
Jack
@Mithras:
The people who made this mess over the last year now will suddenly transform into persons not themselves and fix what they made “later”?
What other magic can we believe in, please?
Elie
@Will:
Well how do you get universal coverage without, well universal participation?
How do you spread the risk across the population to keep the prices paid by all, within reason unless the healthy and the sick are included? Not just the sick.
Did you think we were just going to pay for you without taking care of everyone? Did you think only the healthy with low needs would be addressed?
Just asking.
Tax Analyst
@#116 RareSanity said:
“Holy Cow…
I have been off The Matrix for a couple of days with a deadline at work. I come back to my oasis of logic and snark, and all hell has broken loose!
Cole is absolutely foaming at the mouth. DougJ isn’t far behind. Commentors using safe words, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!
What the hell happened over the past two days?”
Cat G
@EriktheRed: OK, we’re reading minds here, but whether or not he thinks he’s toast in 2012, he’s only half way through his term. He has enormous power and perks sitting as Chairman Homeland Security Committee. Without the Chairmanship he’s just another disaffected back bencher.
Just Some Fuckhead
We can come back later and add a mandate. The important thing is the subsidies.
Will
When you make $20,000 and don’t live in Buttfuck Shithole, Wyo., $133 is a lot of money. It’s even more fucking money when you look at how crappy the co-pays are on that insurance you’re forced to buy.
Let me put this in a way you might understand. This bill is going to hurt a lot of people for a marginal benefit. Maybe, maybe I’d feel differently if the offered product was better. If people were being forced to pay that for the type of no or low cost health care found in other First World nations, I’d agree with you.
But it’s not. It’s forcing them to buy a budget policy that’s still going to cost them tens of thousands of dollars should they have a major medical emergency. For minor emergencies and ailments, it costs a lot less than $1,200 a year to just go to the doctor and pay out-of-pocket the few times you are really sick.
Joe Beese
Oh, and for those who didn’t click through to the Al Giordano piece, his argument in favor of the bill amounts to: 1. Teddy is smiling down on us from Heaven hoping we’ll do what he would have wanted; and 2. Howard Dean is a doody-head.
Bill Arnold
I remember Cheney breaking 50/50 ties during the early GWBush administration. (Tax cuts & cuts in aid to the poor, notably.)
If 60 is the new 50 (%), perhaps the Senate rules should be changed to allow VP Biden to break a “tie”. (Just making a point, not being entirely serious.)
The Republicans are playing with fire here with their vastly increased use of filibusters and procedural delaying tactics. If they ever regain control of the Senate, it’s likely that there will be some serious payback. (I’m hoping for some serious payback when they’re in the minority.)
Jack
@Hunter Gathers:
The premium is not the only price or cost position.
clonecone
@cfaller96: So what you’re saying is you don’t want any bill to pass. You might be happy with the status quo, but I’m not.
It takes 60. Write a bill that gets you 60 and post it for all of us to see.
Mithras
@Jack:
If the political damage from imposing the mandate is as onerous as is being claimed, then yes: A bill that is perceived to fix the looming problem would be relatively easy to pass. Once the media focus on the mandate issue, then the choices are (a) scrap the whole thing or (b) fix the problem. Since (a) is already where we’re at if this dies, then yeah: Pass it and move on.
Brien Jackson
@Doug:
Dean doesn’t have a vote in Congress.
Catsy
@kay:
When people misuse the phrase “demonstrably untrue” to refer to the outcome of events in the future about which they are offering an opinion, you can safely assume they don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about.
Just Some Fuckhead
So we’re all agreed then? The mandate goes.
Jack
@Mithras:
I lack your faith in
Reid, Baucus, Lieberman, Bayh, Lincoln, Conrad, Landrieu, Snowe, Clinton or Obamamagic poniesMithras
@Jack:
Vote Nader!
kay
@Dr.BDH:
I don’t mean to be a pain, but why don’t doctors themselves control costs, like every other for-profit entity and profession?
If Medicaid doesn’t cover your overhead, why not look at your overhead, instead of looking at Medicaid?
I’m not clear on why I’m investing all this money in modernizing medical record keeping, either, quite frankly. The rest of the for-profit universe modernized record keeping 30 years ago, and they ate the cost. Our health care system is for-profit. The for-profit medical entity didn’t invest in modernizing records? Why the heck not? Everyone else did.
Chuck Butcher
@John Cole:
I’ve had it with this revisionist shit. The “progressives” have for the most part kept pretty quiet as this bill went down the tubes. We do know that Howard Dean has supported this right along, despite his single payer desires – as it went farther and farther away from useful and into harmful.
At what point are you unwilling? I’ve eaten shit up until now, now I’m done. If you think this shit sandwich is filled yet, you’re an optimist. Do I think Obama will sign any piece of shit that is labeled HCR? Yes, I do and I’m sorry that is so. That will mean I’m done with him as well when he does it. He KNOWS how harmful mandates without choice are, he’s said so – previously. If YOU don’t know, I’m surprised, if you do – well then…
The left has not done shit to ruin this bill’s chances or the electorate’s view of it – right up until now. Do you propose that there’s a value in creating a Democratic “teabaggers” movement? At some point shit with a (D) after it still tastes like shit and won’t be swallowed. You fucktards act as though the left isn’t and hasn’t been forgiving on the back of an Obama election and their work on his behalf? Why the hell should I or anybody somewhat left take this whiny tittie babies crap seriously?
Jack
@Will:
You are obviously a “nitwit” for thinking the sainted American people might reject these conditions.
And anyone who thinks the Republicans might capitalize on a bad bill wrought for good reasons is also obviously a DFH who should just go back to the smoking the silly weed and flip the channel to Comedy Central…
/sarcasm
Elie
@Just Some Fuckhead:
So how much should we subsidize if we dont have everyone in? Just you? How about Joe down the street? Oh not him. Who picks and choses who we subsidize and how much? Oh only those who can’t get or afford coverage? Well arent they the sicker ones? Hell, they will be more expensive!!! Also, wouldnt that be almost everyone who did not have coverage before? Well wouldnt that almost be universal?
OHNOOOOO — universal but not mandated, right? Thats what you want? We just kinda back into covering and subsidizing everyone but sneakily, under cover of darkness so that we didnt kind of make anyone do it but still everyone did it. Right?
Magic.
Jack
@Mithras:
Alas, Don Quixote, I have no windmills today…
MP
@Will
I’d really like to hear specifics on this. Can you provide them? To be more precise, how is a major medical emergency going to cost tens of thousands of dollars under what’s been proposed?
Mithras
Bottom line: Passing this piece of crap legislation now and returning to it later is better both substantively and politically than not passing it. Light years better politically.
clonecone
@Just Some Fuckhead: “Or, ya know, we could just remove the mandate. Yeah, you shitty-bill-at-any-cost folks have told us that would be the worst thing evah but so what? Whatever it takes, right??”
At dkos during the primary I wrote about the dangers of the mandate on a daily basis. I was called a Republican, an insurance company shill, a sellout, etc by the very people who are now shouting the mandate is Teh Evil. I heard over and over that it was mandates that made Edwards’ plan the only Truly Progressive plan.
The inclusion of the mandate is the product of the Krugman-Dean-PUMA-Hamsher-Greenwald wing of the party. Trying to pin it on Obama, who was firmly against a mandate, is laughable.
Jack
@Mithras:
…yes, politically – because there’s no conceivable way the GOP can drum up a campaign around, “See, the Democrats do believe they can save you from yourselves, and oh yah, do terrible things to you for own good…”
Seebach
@kay: LOLs. Good question.
Will
This American Life did a fascinating couple of episodes on the health care debate. They suggested that, as bad as the insurance companies are, they aren’t the main culprits of the crisis, but one of many players acting in concert to raise costs. The big hospitals, the pharmaceutical companies and doctors all earn as big a share of the blame. The whole system is pretty much broken at every state.
Their episodes on the financial crisis are also well worth a listen. They gave the best and most comprehensible explanation for the crisis that I have seen in the media.
Guster
@Catsy: That probably wouldn’t have bothered you so much if you worked on reading comprehension. I do apologize, though. I’ll try to find someone else to agree with.
Elie
@Chuck Butcher:
Chuck
You are a smart dude.
Did you ever want universal coverage? If that wasnt a goal, why did you support health care reform at all..the status quo would be fine for you.
If so, how was that to be best achieved without mandated participation. Even a single payer would require universal participation to minimize cost of covering sick folks over time. How did you want to achieve that? Even if no one paid anything out of pocket, our taxes in the most socialized form of single payer, would still pay for care and that cost would go up without everyone in it…
Guster
@General Winfield Stuck: I was actually coming at that from another direction.
I think is _also_ just mindblowing to say ‘pass this bill’ when there isn’t anything, or at least the end product, in existence to kill. Complete with a part by part analysis where this phantom bill is just fine.
Given there’s no bill, I’m probably more sympathetic with the ‘killers’ than the ‘passers,’ because if Howard Dean was screaming ‘pass this bill,’ I think Lieberman would find something addition to hate. But if he’s screaming ‘kill this bill,’ that might satisfy Lieberman.
Now Nelson is a different story.
cfaller96
clonecone, I never said I was “satisfied with the status quo.” But I will say this- politically speaking, Progressives in the House and Senate will fare MUCH MUCH better with the status quo than will the Blue Dogs, Blanche Lincoln, or any other moderate Dem up for reelection in 2010. The left won’t get punished like the center will, and it’s a good bet that Dems will still be in the majority. So as far as elections go, it’s no skin off the left’s nose if HCR dies.
To me it’s clear that while Progressives want HCR to pass, Obama and the moderates need it to pass. From a negotiating standpoint, I think the Progressives have a very strong argument that the bill should be altered to be better for them. Although I don’t know for sure if Progressives realize this, but the likes of John Cole are far more terrified of the 2010 elections than they are.
So let’s negotiate- what are you going to give Progressives to get this bill passed and get you through 2010?
Seebach
@Elie: Being mandated to pay for a government option seems so less unethical than forcing someone to buy from a private corporation in a scam industry. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But if I must eat shit, I must.
Mithras
@Jack: The Republicans will attack if this is passed. The Republicans will attack is something else is passed. The Republicans will attack if nothing is passed. And the media will enable them in all cases. I think not passing anything gives them the biggest stick because of the media’s obsession with the horserace. And because not passing anything will produce the most recriminations all around among the Democrats that they’ll be able to cover.
What’s your analysis?
Elie
@Catsy:
Catsy
When you give a retort instead of an answer, one starts to think that you are just sparing.
I think I know what you mean though. For true, it would be an issue to make sure that the mandated coverage is indeed affordable (or free) to people — particularly the poor. That said, without putting words in yours or kay’s mouth, there is nothing specific in a mandate that makes the poor suffer more since they would be covered right along with everyone else. We would just have to make sure that each person could afford their coverage or get the appropriate help to do so.
Jack
@Mithras:
There’s a qualitative difference between the Republicans attacking a decent legislative package which enjoys 50-70% public approval and a legislative package which doesn’t, probably ever won’t, is already showing unfavorably, and is amenable to existing negative messaging.
How is that hard to understand?
clonecone
@cfaller96: “So let’s negotiate- what are you going to give Progressives to get this bill passed and get you through 2010?”
You don’t seem to understand the situation. Progressive senators are already voting for it, but we need 60 votes to pass it. The holdouts don’t want a more progressive bill. Making it more progressive won’t get that extra vote.
TJ
What Butcher said. Amazingly enough, the progressives seem to be the only ones accomplishing anything.
Mithras
@Jack:
It’s not hard to understand. I just don’t think the premise is true, because a decent legislative package (single payer or a system that sets us on a clear path to it) isn’t possible. I thought maybe it was at one time early this year, but the past several months have shown differently. That won’t change for a long time.
So the choice is nothing or whatever we get out of reconciliation. I think the political cost of killing the bill (assuming post-reconciliation sausage is materially similar to the Senate version) is far higher than possible problems with a mandate that doesn’t kick in until 2014 when the level of coverage that must be purchased hasn’t even been defined yet. I understand that you disagree with that assessment. I think you’re unjustifiably relying on poll numbers that reflect the public’s dissatisfaction with the process, not the substance (especially since no one really knows where the substance is going to end up).
kay
@Will:
It took me a long time to get to the providers. I have to say, though, we can’t spend 1/6 of GDP on health care, and that has nothing to do with insurance.
Providers either get better at delivering it affordably, or there’s gonna be rationing, and they lose anyway.
This makes people crazy, but I absolutely believe it: patients have to get better at this too. Insisting that everyone should have access to the most expensive treatments and regimens regardless of medical result is insane. It won’t work, ever.
We’re spending a huge chunk of Medicare on the last year of life, and people went bonkers when it was even suggested they might want to write an advanced directive and opt out of extraordinary medical intervention in the last year of life.
We have to stop being such babies about this stuff. We have to grow up.
Chuck Butcher
@Elie:
Mandate with no choice is not the same or remotely the same as anything you bothered to mention.
By the way just for you stupid fucks that can’t do math,
8% is one month wage. Bother to find out what the actual tax load on blue collar people is? Good for you if you’re not in the tax bracket where one month wage isn’t shit in your life. What the fuck makes you think I’ll stand still for YOU deciding to rip a month wage out of my life in addition to all the rest of the shit you do? And for that I’ll get exactly what? Fuck you with a rusty pitchfork if you can’t get that.
No idea, not a damn clue how close to the edge these people are.
I’ll tell you what, you will get your wish – Obama will sign this piece of junk no matter how bad it is. I’ve lived with the results of stupid shit like this for over 40 years of political life so finishing what’s left of my actual life eating more of it won’t be exactly novel. Just don’t expect me to contribute to it. Go ahead and try to remember some Clinton shit that was passed – think, um, BANKS.
But no. I’m a whiny ass titty baby leftist tool…
Mithras
Let’s also remember that one reason Democrats hold the White House and Congress for the moment is that the public perceived Bush and the Republicans as incompetents who failed to get the people’s business done. Passing nothing or continuing to screw around with this and not moving on to jobs and the other things waiting in the wings will demonstrate to the average person that this crew is as bad as the old one.
Maude
@Just Some Fuckhead: 147
Yup, we’re all in agreement.
kay
@Seebach:
You’ve thought about it. Admit it :)
What other for-profit is given a complete pass when they keep insisting on higher and higher payments? What’s going on here?
Has anyone given you a grant to update your record-keeping system, so you don’t make gruesome and expensive mistakes?
Yeah. Me neither.
cfaller96
clonecone, you don’t seem to understand the premise of John’s recent posts on the topic- specifically, he is upset that liberals may join in opposition and kill the bill. Your statement that “Progressives are already voting for it” is false. Sanders has already said he won’t support the bill. How do you plan to get him back on board?
In any case it’s all hypothetical, since there is no one bill to vote up or down on yet. But I find it interesting that Progressive support is dismissively taken for granted over and over again…and then when there’s a tiny bit of dissension from Progressives because they don’t want to capitulate anymore it becomes THE WORST FUCKING THING EVAH.
The double standard is obvious, insulting, and most importantly not sustainable. You can’t do that forever and ever and ever (again, look and see what happened in 2000). You cannot maintain majority power unless you tend to your base. What I am saying is not controversial.
Jody
Elie:
Well put.
Elie
@Chuck Butcher:
I’m not sure what you are saying, Chuck.
I asked you whether you actually thought universal coverage was something you wanted.
You answered by swearing at me and saying something about mandate without choice. What choices are we talking about?
Back to my question: do you support covering everyone? Simple question, not subtle or mysterious.
I definitely agree that the cost on individuals is a huge issue and potential burden we have to deal with. I also don’t think that this can be addressed if people can volunteer to participate in the program.
I truly am interested to hear how you think that we could cover everyone the most cheaply without a mandate. I’m not just saying that. I would like to hear because its an important issue that is having some devastating and to me unexpected impacts on this debate.
Chuck Butcher
Gee, don’t I feel guilty now, I just got my Obama Christmas card…
Who all got one?
Just Some Fuckhead
@Elie: You stupid cow*, the only important thing is passing a bill, any bill, because otherwise we’ll look like losers and John McCain, blah blah blah. We already threw out bending the cost curve on the delivery side so who cares if we throw out what we’re pretending is universal health care? (It doesn’t actually cover everyone and anyone can still opt for a cheaper fine.)
*I don’t actually think yer a stupid cow. I’m just sticking with a tradition that mandates one start out by insulting Elie.
Mari
Democrats will lose power unless they deliver something positive to the electorate. If they deliver nothing, they will be voted out for being weak. If they deliver something worse than nothing, they will be buried for it.
In the eyes of an electorate that has seen its real wages decline over the past thirty years, health care reform that forces people to turn over 10% of their income–as a defacto tax–to the insurance industry will be as popular as a reform package that provides a mandatory bullet to the head as treatment for all chronic diseases.
The Democrats are in a lose-lose-lose position. If the Democrats don’t pass any reform, they’ll lose. If they pass a mandate, they’ll lose. They don’t have the support to pass real reform.
Health care reform is a political third rail. Half-measures are fatal but the political will does not exist to solve things properly.
Jack
@Mithras:
Your argument is that a “decent…package” isn’t possible? But that we should still accept it because the Republicans are going to attack no matter what and the Dems aren’t going to do better?
Really?
Even if it hands the Republicans a better chance in 2010 and 2012?
You want to give more money and power to insurance companies under those conditions?
With the knowledge that Republicans can then (and probably will, not being famous for indecision) take this new superstructure and remove what portions as are still (barely) tolerable, leaving in place captive consumers, entrenched mandates and insurance companies, and a generation of bitterness towards Democrats?
Really?
Elie
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Oh really? Is that a tradition?
I’m sorry, I was unaware of that. But thanks for doing your part to perpetuate it.
Really, y’all dont have to try so hard. If you disagree with me, I both credit what I agree with but also tell you what I think.
Dont bother me none about yer names, er – Mr Fuckhead?
Mithras
@Jack:
What I think is that the insurance reforms are good and the mandate and subsidies can be fixed or killed later. I think passing nothing hands the Republicans a better chance in 2010 and 2012 than passing something materially the same as the Senate bill.
And you argue now that Republicans will leave the mandate in place while also arguing that the mandate will be hugely unpopular. I don’t think both can be true. If the mandate is hugely unpopular when people focus on it in a couple of years, why and how would the Republicans keep it in place?
danimal
You know, there are many ways to 60 votes in the Senate. The problem is, if you develop a bill that gains the support of 10-20 Republicans, it really will suck much worse than anything we’re contemplating today. All the progressive posturing ignores that reality that Obama and Reid are trying to gather the 60 most liberal senators on the bill.
In my opinion, the only other conceivable way health care reform is reintroduced after a failure of this bill would be as a grand compromise between the parties. And it would suck, likely limited to mandated catastrophic care without most of the subsidies or regulatory changes.
Fair Economist
Reconciliation. A public option is clearly budget related, has already passed the House, and supposedly has 52 supporters in the Senate. Reconciling a public-option-only bill will be straightforward and easy, unlike the current cluster****.
After we have a public option, then pass this bill in its current form.
Jack
@Mithras:
I know you have faith in the Democrats switching their personas and making better that which they’ve made bad.
I know you have faith in the premise that “doing nothing” means that no other chance or opportunity exists, whether or not your opponents are actually advocating “doing nothing” (none of us are, from what I’ve read).
I know you have asserted, in faith, that the Republicans will attack anything, no matter what, so we might as well pass this awful proposed legislation into law because we cannot possibly get anything “decent.”
I also know you haven’t actually addressed the argument made by myself, and others, that these faith assertions are themselves unwarranted, and for the reasons we’ve given already.
*
I see no reason to disagree with the premise that the Republican position will resolve to some form of attack. What I don’t understand is why you think it will go well for them only if they have nothing to attack. Could you explain that further, please?
Citizen Alan
@Hunter Gathers:
By an interesting coincidence, 1/12 of $20,000 is about $1666. Which means that the amount you want someone making $20k/year to pay for insurance is nearly a month’s gross wages. If this wage-earner spends $10/day on food, $600/month for a shitty 1BR apartment, $200 a month for the car he needs to get to work, and $300 for student loans, he simply can’t afford to pay $133 a month for shitty useless insurance.
To someone making $20k a year, $133 a month for insurance is a staggering sum of money. That you do not understand this tells me that you are one of those silly people who thinks that “poor” means “so destitute that you qualify for Medicaid,” but I promise you that millions of Americans who are not making it in this economy have a much broader definition.
Jack
@Citizen Alan:
Perhaps he calculates as if the 20k person is already paying for insurance, and will therefore perhaps see a reduction in premiums (which aren’t, of course, they only costs)?
I don’t know…
Citizen Alan
@Mithras:
What on earth is the point of high-deductible insurance for the working poor?!? Do you not understand that people can be forced into bankruptcy over a $20,000 medical bill just as easily as a $100,000 medical bill?
danimal
@Citizen Alan: Assuming this is all true, and then assuming the subsidies don’t help defray the cost, why not increase the subsidy level?
Why kill the bill and increase premature deaths, medical bankruptcies and insurance-related anxiety? I don’t get it.
Jack
“…Yggie really ought to go into politics fer rizzle, because he seems to have distinct coprophiliac tendencies. “Health reform.” What is that? To this imponderable the Donk answer is: anything and everything. Quite literally. So long as it comes out of a Donk congress. Now Yglesias is the sort of blurgher who’s fond of hectoring far lefties and libertarianische types for their habit of speaking in generalities and idealities, ignoring the ol’ salt-mine of practical politics. So one wonders how he can persist in being so blithely unconcerned with the actual content of the bill before him. Is it a cake, or is it a turd? Well, it’s on a plate, isn’t it? Are we gonna split hairs?
Universal, tax-funded health coverage has been transmogrified through the usual Washingtonian alchemy into an insane mandate that uninsured individuals purchase, at great personal expense, extremely shitty insurance plans. There you have it. The federal government is going to force poor, underemployed people to spend thousands of dollars that they can ill afford to spend on consumer products offered by private corporations. I am sure that Yglesias et al. will have some very clever arguments about how this is ultimately good policy because it forces the irrational lower orders to invest in plans that will at least hedge against future catastrophe, you know, the sort of rational future-planning that poor morons don’t usually make because fortuity failed to commend a Harvard education upon their beer-drinking souls. So it is worth reiterating: poor wage-earners cannot afford health insurance. That’s why they don’t buy it! Although it seems to us comfortable salarymen far more rational to pay a couple hundred bucks a month for minimal coverage just in case we get Ted Kennedy’s brain cancer, it isn’t an option for some people.
Point being, what you have here is a partisan hack endorsing a plan that does nearly the exact opposite of that which he claims to preferentially support, because his party, sort of, produced it. Instead of using public funds to provide direct subsidies of medical treatment, you have private wealth confiscated through the threat of legal sanction for the purpose of increasing the market penetration of private companies. You’ve replaced a program of individual welfare with a system of corporate welfare paid for by the very individuals whose economic status would make them the recipients of the individual welfare you claim to seek. Fuck the poor, so long as it reflects well on Barack Obama, his coattails, and our chances in 2010.”
http://whoisioz.blogspot.com/2009/12/hammer-and-needle.html
This.
Mithras
@Jack:
Actually, I don’t think you’ve understood my argument at all if you think it’s based on faith. And I thought I had addressed your arguments, but I’ll give it another go:
Passing no bill at all – what I mean by “doing nothing” – will be politically worse because, put simply, everyone understands that passing nothing is a failure but passing something with provisions that don’t kick in for 4 years just means the FUD will continue. However, the framework represented by the Senate bill gives us something that we can possibly make improvements or additions to down the road. On the other hand, if no bill is passed, then the political will to return to the subject will be exhausted for years because all the capital expended on it produced nothing. If you can explain a scenario in which no bill is passed as part of this process but the Congress and President remain eager to go back to it, I’d appreciate it.
Could you also please respond specifically to my point that a hugely unpopular mandate could be undone before it kicks in? You seem to have dodged the issue.
Dr.BDH
Kay, I work in a nonprofit regional health system that consistently saves Medicare money through it’s pilot programs. We’re fully paperless, with electronic medical records we developed ourselves. We treat 60+% of the ever growing Medicare population in our region, plus the majority of the Medicaid patients, and we lose money on every one of them. We also see uninsured patients with an open door policy and we sponsor a Community Health Care plan for those not eligible for other coverage. It’s not about controlling our costs, it’s about being paid for our costs, which are reasonable. It would benefit us to have more private insurance patients, which would pay us more, but I dislike the profit-taking of private insurance.
Medicine isn’t like other businesses, not if you provide it for everyone like we do. Your cost-controlling solution could be met by degrading our level of service and/or turning patients away (which is what our competition does), but I consider that a violation of professional ethics.
Elie
@danimal:
Yes
Also, in what scenario are those now complaining about what they might pay, not have understood before that even in a single payer alternative, we were all going to pay something through our taxes and that the rate of the deduction might be dependent on our income? Did people just wake up one morning and realize that this was not going to be free to cover everyone?
Really, I am just starting to get that vibe that somehow folks all thought this was somehow going to be cost neutral…suddenly this talk of mandate seems less to me about covering everyone or even addressing prior conditions, and more about what ‘I’ am going to have to pay to cover Joe down the street…
Very interesting
Mithras
@Citizen Alan:
The point is that a very cheap high-deductible policy will probably (since the bill doesn’t specify what is exactly mandated) satisfy the mandate and pay for catastrophic expenses, while avoiding forcing the patient into the purgatory known as Medicaid.
Chuck Butcher
@Elie: @Elie:
I’m sorry if that seemed that way, it was directed at some others who minimized 8%.
Medicare for everyone at 8% with some sort of sliding scale would do the job. It wouldn’t be gold plated and by many standards it would be substandard and it would require options into better private plans. But getting people out of emergency rooms and into doctor’s offices and not spreading bankruptsies across the system is absolutely required.
Minus that, which we all agreed at the outset was not gonna happen…John Cole…some form of competition within the industry is required. An actual public option might have done something, well minus that… The end of anti-trust exemptions and the removal of states from the picture and a Federal body that rigorously enforces regs – a consumer’s agency rather than the Industry shills that exist might do some of it.
There are enough various ideas to mean something, mandates without choice are absolute anathema. This is what some here (a lot) do not get and won’t because they’re sold on title. I think we agree The Clean Air Initiative was anything but that, this isn’t reform and it isn’t about health care anymore – it is about subsidizing Aetna.
I didn’t say kill the bill, I said kill the fucking mandates or kill the bill. If it isn’t obvious by now that no competitive model is going to emerge at any point, I don’t know what to say to supporters of this as it stands.
Jack
@Mithras:
Hey, if you think your assertions aren’t faith assertions, I’m hardly going to convince you otherwise.
But…
I didn’t dodge an argument you only just made.
To whit, if you think that the mandate will be hugely unpopular and can then be “undone” sometime before it’s staged effects actually set in, such that people can find them unpopular, I really have no way to respond to this, except to point to the fact that voters do protest vote.
Otherwise, I countered your previous arguments with a set of questions and argued assertions of my own.
Citizen Alan
@danimal:
Because of that ole’ debbel deficit. Increasing the subsidies will cost us one or more of the fiscal scolds in our fragile 60 person alliance, and so reducing the subsidies will be the price for getting them to vote against filibuster. After Nelson gets done trying use this bill to make it illegal to pay for an abortion with insurance benefits, look for Bayh or Landreau or somebody like that to start hemming and hawing about how he doesn’t know if he can vote for a bill this expensive.
Jack
@Mithras:
The “purgatory” of Medicaid?
Are you actually suggesting that it’s better to tell people they have to buy shit insurance from soakingly rich motherfuckers under penalty of law, which will still result in them going broke and perhaps worse than that if they do actually get sick, than it is to get state administered public assistance with 24 hour approval turn arounds?
Jack
@Citizen Alan:
You seem to lack the faith-based blinders of some of our friends across the gulf, in this debate.
Elie
@Chuck Butcher:
Okay — by way of trying to understand this whole mandate thing better:
You are thinking of mandate as not a requirement that everyone participate, but more of a risk that everyone has to pay the private sector insurance company, rather than more parsimoniously managed Medicare for coverage. Is that what I am hearing?
I would agree wholeheartedly with that, along with acknowledging that we would probably get less than optimal care for a while.
Not sure this is going to happen though and I still advocate for as many folks to be covered as possible first. I am nervous though about what you point out if we do not get adequate controls on the ability of the insurance companies to control their prices..
So I think I understand, but if not, please let me know
General Winfield Stuck
@Just Some Fuckhead:
I am unaware of any such tradition.
Mithras
@Jack:
They’re not faith assertions; they’re predictions based on what I think are common features of the average politician’s character. I think our disagreement stems from a different evaluation of what that character is. I think if politicians lose a fight, they are very reluctant to come back and fight it again unless they have a very, very good reason. In this case, this is a very high-profile fight that have devoured an enormous amount of time and energy. If nothing is passed as a result, no average politician will see the advantage of repeating the experience. On the other hand, I think the average politician who has won a fight is very eager to defend whatever it is that has been won.
As for the issue of fixing the mandate: For example, let’s assume a bill is signed into law that is very much like the Senate bill. When 2013 rolls around, people will start discussing the mandate seriously and examining what it means for them, how it will be enforced, etc. Numbers will be run based on coverage requirements to satisfy the law and the then-current premiums. It won’t simply be sprung on people in 2014. What part of that do you think is incorrect? And, to ask for a third time, if the mandate does in fact turn out to be hugely unpopular, then why and how would the Republicans keep it in place?
Tax Analyst
@#184 Elie said:
“Mr. Fuckhead?” Why so formal, Elie? After all, aren’t we all friends here on the Balloon Juice Love Boat?
kay
@Dr.BDH:
Thanks so much. I didn’t intend to be snarky, but I feel as if no one ever looks at providers.
I do about 25/75 private to court appointed work in my practice. The hourly rate for what I do is low (juveniles) and if I went to the county commissioners and asked for a 10% increase every year they’d either 1. appoint someone else, or 2. laugh me out of the room.
I wanted to do the work, I need to make a decent wage, and I’m not getting a raise on the hourly rate, because 1. the counties who appoint me and pay me are broke and 2. defense of indigent juvenile delinquents is not a high priority, or politically popular.
We had to get better at the overhead costs or we weren’t going to make it, and we did that.
Elie
@Tax Analyst:
Yeah — the B-J Love Boat allright!
Should I just have called him affectionately of course, just Fuckie or FuckFuck or Fuckmeister? Would that have better communicated my love?
Kisses —
Elie
Mithras
@Jack:
I’ve never been on Medicaid, so I can’t give first-hand testimony, but the people I know who are on it (in Rhode Island and Pennsylvania) seem to think its sucks, in part because of the paperwork involved just to maintain your eligibility. I have heard of things taking months to get approved, not hours. Of course, private insurance can be just as bad. My original point is that people are talking about the 8% of income as if that’s a floor, not a ceiling, on the premiums they’d be looking at. There is very cheap high-deductible coverage available right now – as I have said, that might change before 2014, but we have an opportunity to focus on that before it goes into effect.
General Winfield Stuck
@Elie:
Don’t let Fuckhead fuck with ya. Say boo, usually works.
Elie
@Mithras:
Medicaid can suck and the eligibility process is terrible – worse in some states than others and can be a horrible and humiliating process —
That said, did you know that most of the long term care in this country that is institutional, and much of catastrophic care is covered by Medicaid. People have to impoverish themselves to receive it — and that is the rub and how it was designed to be. We dont like poor people much in this country.
Also, Medicaid is a provider payment program. That means that without it, providers of care would be giving uncompensated care and ya know, unless you were lucky, that means that many many folks would get nothing at all. In the old days, and in some states still, like Louisiana, uncompensated or charity care is how many poor get treated in institutions…
I’m for making that less and moving everyone into a common system over time. No one should have to line up like cattle every six months to re sign up for health care coverage
Jack
@Mithras:
No one in this argument, from what I’ve seen, has treated with the 8% premium figure as a floor. We understand that it is an effective cap on premiums.
On premiums.
Not on all costs.
And 8% of income (gross or net) is nothing to sniff at. I suggest to you, kindly, that the best way for you to understand this is for you to dump any current insurance coverage you have and then budget 8% of your current gross to paying for the Starburst health plan you might get from working at a 7/11.
As for Medicaid – it’s vastly superior to the sort of budget plans already in existence. It is administered state to state, so there may be some degree of difference in how people experience, but I can attest to what I know closest to home.
My wife conferences with Medicaid, patients and her practice’s Medicaid liaison on a daily basis. While there is some paperwork involved, most of approval transactions occur in phone based conference negotiations, esp. for destitute on the spot parties.
Often enough she will work with a new pregnant patient (almost predictably, this will be a below poverty single mother with no or minimal income), the liaison and the Medicaid case officer to get approval, practice records and appointments with providers done all on the same phone call – and that’s for patients who have done absolutely none of the work for themselves.
There is always coding, archival and follow up paperwork, but that doesn’t detract from the superiority of Medicaid, compared to slap-in-the-face budget plans, or part timer catastrophic money sinks…
Elie
@General Winfield Stuck:
Believe me, he doesnt. Just laughs…
kay
@Dr.BDH:
I do get frustrated, though. Because of the nature of my practice (rural poor people) they come to me for all kinds of things.
They call me with just general problems.
We have a private hospital (one) and a medical group that is essentially a monopoly. If they don’t make payments to the medical group on past due accounts, (three counties, one medical entity, so they’re locked out in three counties) they get turned away. They can, of course, go to the emergency room.
I got invited to a fundraiser to send used imaging equipment to under-developed countries overseas, sponsored by the medical group, and all I could think of was “WTF? How about we donate it to the people who live here?”
I couldn’t go, because I’d be in danger of serious ranting, and it’s a small town.
Elie
@kay:
Much respect to you kay. Much respect…
Chuck Butcher
This argument is stupid since a win is what counts. it will also result, tonight, in the end of my Co Party Chairmanship. I stated I was taking leave until Feb, mainly because I am unconvinced that the Democrats are ultimately this hopeless. Some are unsatisfied, as is quite within reason and I believe my resignation will be asked for and I will grant it without any fight.
Since the purpose of the Democratic Party is to advance Democratic agendas and to elect Democrats I fall down on one part of that at this time. Being done with the Party has meaning to me so this smarts. OK, see ya.
OK, John Cole and others, I’m a whiny ass my way baby – you all have put more into this stuff than me so …
Elie
@Jack:
Generally agree with you for the northern states. Not true about Medicaid in the south where caps on visits and extreme restrictions make the program much less comprehensive.
Still and all, I agree with having it of course and its general benefit. Its gotten a hard rap over the years but has holding up seniors who do not have the minimum of 24K annually for nursing home care — almost everyone who isnt rich.
We have a lot of myths about healthcare in this country…a lot of myths about how people survive
Elie
@Chuck Butcher:
Did I miss some key part of what is happening? Seems like I walked in on a comment that I only partially understood or heard…
kay
@Chuck Butcher:
I am sorry you’re going. I linked to your blog when you first mentioned this, and saw what you wrote. It’s a little inside local baseball, to be honest, your explanation, but I got the general gist, and I am sorry that you’re leaving.
But, it sounds like you’ve had it with Party involvement, for now, anyway.
I checked out during Clinton, but just because I thought Lewinsky stuff was completely insane and I couldn’t listen to media anymore. Your discontent is more central than that, however.
Mithras
@Jack:
I have to end this conversation soon, but a couple of things first:
If people are completely uninsured and have not yet qualified for medicaid, the percentage of their income they would they end up paying if they got really sick approaches 100.
And if they were unable to pay and hadn’t qualified for medicaid, they could get uncompensated care but would not get the same kind of treatments that a high-deductible plan would cover. Yes, for most people above the Medicaid line but just living paycheck-to-paycheck, a $100,000 deductible is as affordable as a $1 trillion deductible. No one is saying this is a great bill. But it’s better to have catastrophic coverage than to spend all your money while getting basic, uncompensated care while waiting the months or year it will take for your medicaid card to come.
Anyway, I have to go. Good to have a mostly civil discussion.
kay
@Elie:
I don’t want to sound like I’m doing them a favor. I sought the work and I like doing it. I had a secure job. I was a mail carrier and I could have remained a mail carrier, forever. I chose this.
Mithras
@Elie:
I know Medicaid is a godsend for lots of people. I was talking about the paperwork and -based on my friends’ experiences – the limitations on medications and procedures that it’ll cover. I can only imagine what it must be like for someone who is having some serious medical issue to have to resubmit the exact same stack of documents every six months.
Anyway, I’m out. Thanks.
Jack
@Elie:
That’s a fair point. I know that where I live (NH) Medicaid is functionally useful, and that in Georgia, pretty much only antebellum sharecroppers can qualify.
I just wanted to point out, though, that it’s not “purgatory” compared to the part time catastrophic “health insurance” you get from working at a gas station.
Paula
@clonecone:
Trying to pin it on Obama is laughable? What planet are you one?
They just tried to allow drug importation from Canada, and the administration Squashed it. Obama could have the mandates removed in a second if he wanted to.
Chuck Butcher
The ‘stupid argument’ part? What part of support for choiceless mandates do you see being made in good faith? When you have people blithely spending a month income of people who cannot afford health care to take whatever these same entities will offer you do not have good faith. You have a determination to win on something called Health Care Reform, it might as well be cookie recipes called that.
This bill won’t get fixed into something that is meaningful reform but it needn’t be an evil. It is now. If these mandates aren’t fought tooth and nail; they will stay. HealthInc not only wants the expanded customer base they really want the fed on the hook as well as they do business as usual. They’ll take the toothless BS regs and the tinkering around the edges and maybe they can avoid single payer (or variant) for the next decade or so.
They win with money and they win with the losses their enemies the Democrats are going to sustain. The Democrats in the Senate allowed themselves to be manuevered into a heads we win/tails you lose position. The entire Congressional delegation is going to suffer for it and it will probably spill over into States. Chances are I’ll be staying home (assuming mandates stay) and there are a lot like me. There are a bunch of new voters who will realize what’s been done to them and they’re sure not going to be enthusiastic.
Massive stupidity has consequences and supporting it isn’t in my balliwick. Unfortunately Democrats will deserve what gets done to them and really, the American people deserve the consequences of their electoral behavior. That’s real rough on the sane responsible ones. I don’t like it, but I’m a whiny ass titty baby… Oh, and I’m not important, either.
Mark Gisleson
In this case the progressive wing is the abortionist you go to after Joe Lieberman hits your pregnant g’friend in the stomach a couple of times and then forces her to drink some bleach.
This bill is unacceptable. I’ve been living without health insurance for over a quarter of a century (they refuse to insure me because I was once prescribed lithium). I can wait a while longer for real reform.
Shitty reform that makes me pay for shitty insurance is not the solution, but I’m sure it looks like one to people who have decent health insurance already.
Paula
@Elie:
We just have to make sure the poor can affo@Citizen Alan:
Furthermore, wait for the next budget battle or the next Repub administration when money’s tight. When the system is based on subsidizing people, the subsidies become a constant vulnerable point and are subject to change.
Chuck Butcher
@Paula:
No, subsidies to a private company will continue indefinitely, whether there is a usable product is entirely questionable. Can you say KBR/Halliburton, Blackwater…
MNPundit
Of course Krugs is going to support. He was a Hill-Shill and she had the mandates remember?
Paula
@Chuck Butcher:
Well you do have a point there!
Tlaloc
Yeah because when the president asks you to leap off the cliff…
Gee, isn’t it too bad that some people back in 2007 refused to even consider questions of Obama’s competence and readiness to actually be president.
Somehow it almost seems like some people saw this kind of clusterfuck coming from the guy when the guy with no executive experience was catapulted into the whitehouse in the middle of a constellation of problems.
But nevermind this site has been light on self awareness since, oh, about oct 2007.
Welcome to the shit sandwich and thank you so much for helping make it for all of us, Cole.
Just Some Fuckhead
@General Winfield Stuck: No, that doesn’t work you stinky old man. What works is you stay the fuck under my radar so I don’t feel compelled to run your cowardly ass off like everyone else does every other week.
Jane_in_Colorado
I have not read the bill. I’m stupid that way. But I have a few thoughts. I kind of trust Ezra Klein on health care matters. I definitely trust Nate Silver and Al Giordano on reality assessments–their track record during the 2008 election was spotless.
They say even a health care bill without a public option is worth passing. Is it possible that this is true?
I think so. I am currently being treated for stage III cancer. If I lose my job, right now it would not be possible for me to obtain health insurance at any price. It’s my understanding that the de-public-optioned bill would still guarantee that I could get health insurance if I lost my job, because the insurance companies could not deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
That’s worth something to me. Right now, I’m in the situation that if I lose my job, I die. Without treatment, I will die. Not quickly, but surely. Without insurance, I cannot possibly afford treatment. With treatment there’s an excellent chance I will survive, and continue to contribute to the economy for many more years.
If it was up to me, we’d have universal health coverage along the lines of what they do in England or France. To me that seems like simple human decency. But we are what we are. We have thousands of people demonstrating in DC against the alleged horrors of health care reform, which are being compared to the Holocaust. And millions more who agree with them. This is the hand we have been dealt. We don’t like it, but it is what it is.
In the face of this, I personally would be happy for a bill that implemented some simple reforms. It’s my understanding that the bill includes many valuable concepts such as metrics designed to figure out which treatments are really effective, versus those which are just expensive.
Is there not some value in this?
What I prefer isn’t going to happen. There are too many vested interests aligned against it. But maybe this bill could be the thin edge of the wedge?
General Winfield Stuck
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Cookie? Boo.
I are still here,
General Winfield Stuck
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Please feel free to try, anytime your little heart desires. Tough guy. LOL. shakes in boots.
General Winfield Stuck
@Tlaloc:
Still a PUMA dipshit, I see.
DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal)
@General Winfield Stuck:
Yup, and Bill Clinton says the bill is still worth passing. I bet the PUMAs are shitting themselves over that development.
Lisa
Jane:
That is the most compelling argument that I have heard for supporting the Health Care Reform bill as it is. It sucks ass, true – but it will still help a lot of people. A lot of people.
Thank you and I wish you the very best in your fight against cancer.
itsbenj
This post is supremely dickish. Jeez.
Krugman is more supportive of the overall effect of the bill passing yes, but he doesn’t seem to have much love for the bill itself. The Progressives you suggest are ‘saboteurs’ are actually just trying to do what they can to make the bill better.
What about this do you not understand? It’s not that difficult, folks. Talk about being unable to handle disagreement! People try to play some hardball and suddenly they’re ‘sabotaging’ and on par with the principle-free Blue Dots. Nice to know. Authoritarian? Krugman – no. You – yeah.
Lisa
itsbenj: your post was deeply ironic. “you can’t handle criticism! you authoritarian!!1!!!”
lol